If I-M26 could pool up in Iberia subsequent to the Neolithic Period, so could R-P312. Apparently either its pooling still results in a younger age than the pooling of I-M26 (a y haplogroup far less common than R-P312) or the pooling process in Iberia was selective.

Well given that M26 is older than P312, if out of those 143 M26 haplotypes a good 40% came from Sardinia and elsewhere during the Roman periods, they would be separated by at least 4000-5000 years from the Pyrenean haplogroups, and in that time they would be accumulating variance on their own, hence why they would look older when pooled together. Again I’m not arguing that P312 is older than M26, I’m arguing that it has an older presence in the Western Pyrenees than I-M26 does.

You are also arguing from the absence of evidence, and, besides that, I am not sure that all of what you wrote is actually true. What about the mass burial at SJAPL, in which there are signs of traumatic injury and violent death, some from arrows? I am not saying the entire burial site was the product of mass slaughter (that doesn't appear to be the case), but obviously the area was not conflict free either.

SJAPL is located in the Ebro Valley, which does show signs of a colonization during the Neolithic, however there are no massive burials yet discovered in Northern Navarra, Guipuzcoa, Iparralde, Vizcaya where signs of violence appear.

Of course, we can, except that, if we do, we have to explain how such devastation at the hands of G2a agriculturists was completely reversed by the surviving R-L11 lines, so that R-L11 lineages have come to dominate western Europe, and G2a is a minor y haplogroup there. And that despite the agriculturists' obvious advantages in food production.

Well it seems the R1b-L11 folks did overpower the G2a agriculturist, now for some reason if the expanded from the Western regions of Europe is a wild fantasy, but if they expanded from the Steppes where they were equally holed up as hunter gatherers, then it is definitely the real deal, no questions asked!!

The argument for the reduction of I-M26, which remains reduced (if reduced it was), is stronger.

Given the population density of the area in Neolithic times, if I-M26 would have been reduced as you claim, it wouldn’t had made it to today, in fact like I said, I-M26 shows peaks in frequency in the Pyrenees, moreso in the Eastern side than in the Western, but nonetheless it is the second most significant haplogroup in the Western Pyrenean region. Also G-P15+ does make its occasional appearance in there, so this just goes to show that there were some minor external influence in the Basque Country namely G2a and I-M26.

As I mentioned before, if I-M26 could pool in the Peninsula, so could R-P312. Despite such equal opportunity pooling, I-M26 is far older there than R-P312.

Well if the SNP event that gave rise to M26 is older than the one that gave rise to P312, yes, the M26 in the peninsula ought to be older than P312, especially if we consider that part of it came from Sardinia in the last 2000 years, whereas part of it came during the Neolithic.

I am no expert on haplotype diversity, but from what I have read in the past, from Mike Walsh, Tim Janzen, Ken Nordtvedt and others, R-P312 diversity is higher in eastern and central Europe than in the Iberian Peninsula.

Well according to Myres.et.al.2012 R-P312 diversity is higher in Southern France than elsewhere, now you wanna get into the contest of what data is better Myres.et.al or the FTDNA project data used by Tim Janzen, Ken Nordvedt, and Mike, because that is basically what it comes down to.

If you tell me it's higher in the western Pyrenees than in a similarly-sized Ruthenian district of the Carpathians, I am going to suggest you run for Congress. ;-)

Man, that would surely get me a nice job, especially in these times amid the unemployment situations those s..ckers appear to be living the good life. Unfortunately I’m not into politics, I mean, not into politics up to the point of actually wanting to be a politician, I don’t think I could take it; they are experts in throwing a cesspool of fallacies when arguing about anything. :-)

Jean L- Those who believe R1b, like R1a moved east to west in some fashion have at least put up some models for this drawing on archaeology etc. Do you have any model with some evidence for R1b pouring out of the Pyrenees in the form of some newly Neolithicised hunter group in the copper age. At least the same model moving from east to west does have some pretty good archaeological fits, including a large pool of hunters turning into pastoralists late in the Neolithic and a general spread of their behaviour patterns across Europe. Had you been arguing a Portuguese origin of R1b then at least you would have the spread of beaker (or at least the pots) to point to. However, I think that would not suit your model because Portugal has neither a large population of non-farmers as late as 3000BC nor is it known as a place where non-IE languages are known. A Basque area origin for P312 does not seem to have much going for it IMO. I find it odd that you would argue a Basque origin when a better alternative would be Portugal.

Jean L- Those who believe R1b, like R1a moved east to west in some fashion have at least put up some models for this drawing on archaeology etc. Do you have any model with some evidence for R1b pouring out of the Pyrenees in the form of some newly Neolithicised hunter group in the copper age. At least the same model moving from east to west does have some pretty good archaeological fits, including a large pool of hunters turning into pastoralists late in the Neolithic and a general spread of their behaviour patterns across Europe. Had you been arguing a Portuguese origin of R1b then at least you would have the spread of beaker (or at least the pots) to point to. However, I think that would not suit your model because Portugal has neither a large population of non-farmers as late as 3000BC nor is it known as a place where non-IE languages are known. A Basque area origin for P312 does not seem to have much going for it IMO. I find it odd that you would argue a Basque origin when a better alternative would be Portugal.

Also I've said it before, I do believe that R1b-L23(xL150) moved from the Steppes West to Europe, and likely brought PIE to Western Europe, but I think R1b-L150+ folks were in Western Europe already when R1b-L23(xL150) folks arrived.

The Iberian Peninsula is a significant region for understanding the Bell Beaker phenomenon. The Bell Beaker developed during the first half of the third millennium BC, during the recent phase of the Chalcolithic and coexisted with it until the emergence of the Early Bronze age. Archaeological data suggest that the emergence of the Bell Beaker was associated with societal transformations at the end of the Neolithic by the exchange of socially valuable goods. From an anthropological point of view, no element suggest a renewal or displacement of populations at the origins of the Bell Beaker, however, studies have not specifically addressed this issue and concern primarily the effects of environment on individuals. The sample here consists of around 180 individuals and 14 sites from Northern Spain. The samples are attributed to the Final Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bell Beaker.

[…]

Regional Analysis:

The involvement of local populations in the emergence of the Bell Beaker varies according to region (Fig.3). It is only in northern Spain and Bohemia that strict links between the Bell Beaker occupation and local occupations exist (Fig.4 and 5).

For the other three regions, external population influences played a role in the origin of the Bell Beaker occupation, but their contribution also varies. Complete population renewal—or at least a highly significant exogenous impact – is unambiguous for southern France and Hungary. In effect, Bell Beaker populations are clearly distinguished from local populations in these two regions (Fig.6 and 7)

As for Switzerland, however, shows a local regional population disturbed by partial population renewal or the integration of exogenous individuals(Fig.8). Such a situation in the Swiss region seems to have already been present, although less intensively, during the Neolithic.

[…]

Bell Beaker through Europe: Dental morphology has demonstrated two population spheres present in the territory studies (Fig.10). The entities are clearly distinct: we thus have the western Bell Beakers and the eastern Bell Beakers, which we respectively term Bell Beakers and Beakers. The western Bell Beakers are quite similar and the Swiss populations can be strongly linked to their morphology. They form a highly uniform group. The eastern Bell Beakers show a certain cohesion that seems however to have been less isolated.

A discussion on population dynamics

Based on these results, it is possible to propose a diffusion model for the Bell Beaker phenomenon. The emergence of the Bell Beaker culture in the western sphere resulted from the displacement of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europe. The biological impact was recorded to at least Switzerland, and possibly also to Hungary. Thus, the Bell Beakers small groups of individuals equipped with their material culture know—how—formed the basis for Bell Beaker diffusion in this region of the phenomenon. The situation in the eastern sphere is more complex. Dental data suggest evolution within a single society. Nevertheless, women—Corded Ware and Bell Beaker—were differentiated from the local populations, probably resulting from societies practicing exogamy. Thus, to understand the modalities for the establishment of the Bell Beaker phenomenon we must dissociate the diffusion of western elements from the exogamic diffusion of women in the eastern domain into two points in time (Fig.11 and 12). On the basis of currently available radiocarbon dates suggesting a southwest—northeast gradient for the expansion of the Bell Beaker, we propose the following:

Phase 1: Migration of groups of Bell Beaker individuals from the Iberian Peninsula toward the east, while the eastern domain is still occupied by the Corded Ware culture.

Phase 2: Part of the Corded Ware on the edge of the phenomenon was individualized and adopted, by borrowing, some of the western Bell Beaker traditions. Diffusion of this new society—the Beakers—continued toward the east. At the same time, certain eastern elements were diffused toward the west.

^The above paper could explain why we find a wholly lactose intolerant population in Treilles, Southern France made up of mostly G2a with some minor I2a circa 3000 BC, yet in the same date we find a partially lactose tolerant population in SJAPL, Southern Alava, Basque Country. If there was indeed a population movement from Northern Spain to Southern France that caused total replacement it could explain why the region today is mostly R1b-M269+ and lactose tolerant. Other findings that are in line with what has been recently found is that Bell Beakers societies in Central Europe were patrilocal, which has been confirmed from the study done in Germany. So I think this point to a very strong likelihood for the dispersal of R1b-P312 from Northern Spain.

Of course, we can, except that, if we do, we have to explain how such devastation at the hands of G2a agriculturists was completely reversed by the surviving R-L11 lines, so that R-L11 lineages have come to dominate western Europe, and G2a is a minor y haplogroup there. And that despite the agriculturists' obvious advantages in food production.

Well it seems the R1b-L11 folks did overpower the G2a agriculturist, now for some reason if the expanded from the Western regions of Europe is a wild fantasy, but if they expanded from the Steppes where they were equally holed up as hunter gatherers, then it is definitely the real deal, no questions asked!!

. . .

I would not say there were "no questions asked" or even that all of us are convinced R1b expanded from the steppes, but one very key difference between what you suggested and an expansion from the steppe is that you have G2a agriculturists so reducing the R1b population that it must hole up in the Pyrenees with so many fewer surviving lines that it appears much younger than it is. Then, somehow, R1b makes a massive comeback, apparently after having bred like rabbits in its mountain fastnesses, and overcomes the G2a agriculturists, pretty much replacing them as the dominant y haplogroup of western Europe. And that despite the possession by the agriculturists of the best land and of superior means of food production.

The steppe scenario, or the Anatolian scenario, or what-have-you, simply has R1b grow there, relatively unmolested and unreduced by any kind of agriculturists, only moving into Europe as population pressure and technological advancement permits.

^The above paper could explain why we find a wholly lactose intolerant population in Treilles, Southern France made up of mostly G2a with some minor I2a circa 3000 BC, yet in the same date we find a partially lactose tolerant population in SJAPL, Southern Alava, Basque Country. If there was indeed a population movement from Northern Spain to Southern France that caused total replacement it could explain why the region today is mostly R1b-M269+ and lactose tolerant. Other findings that are in line with what has been recently found is that Bell Beakers societies in Central Europe were patrilocal, which has been confirmed from the study done in Germany. So I think this point to a very strong likelihood for the dispersal of R1b-P312 from Northern Spain.

I'm not convinced N. Iberian dental morphology is an argument that R-P312 not only expanded from there but originated there. Autosomal dna is tricky, half-contributed by females, as everyone knows, and subject to the rules of dominance and recession. A dominant dental trait contributed by a minority population could very easily become the norm in a relatively short amount of time - "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" - regardless of what was happening on the y-dna front.

I am also far less than certain about the argument from lactase persistence, which could as easily have been female-vectored as male-vectored. As a matter of fact, at the Lichtenstein Cave site in Germany, circa 1300 BC (a bit late, I know), a number of the I2 individuals were LP, as were the two R1a, while the single R1b individual was lactose intolerant.

I would not say there were "no questions asked" or even that all of us are convinced R1b expanded from the steppes, but one very key difference between what you suggested and an expansion from the steppe is that you have G2a agriculturists so reducing the R1b population that it must hole up in the Pyrenees with so many fewer surviving lines that it appears much younger than it is. Then, somehow, R1b makes a massive comeback, apparently after having bred like rabbits in its mountain fastnesses, and overcomes the G2a agriculturists, pretty much replacing them as the dominant y haplogroup of western Europe. And that despite the possession by the agriculturists of the best land and of superior means of food production.

The steppe scenario, or the Anatolian scenario, or what-have-you, simply has R1b grow there, relatively unmolested and unreduced by any kind of agriculturists, only moving into Europe as population pressure and technological advancement permits.

Well, it seems Bell Beakers did expand from Iberia, and curiously enough one of the areas that experienced total replacement of population was Southern France, in fact if one looks here:

I'm not convinced N. Iberian dental morphology is an argument that R-P312 not only expanded from there but originated there.

Tell me something I don’t already know! But suit up, because this is yet another line of evidence pointing to an expansion of P312 from Northern Iberia, and SW France. I have yet to see any convincing line of evidence that points to the origin of P312 as a surfing wave haplogroup, especially when there is no East-West diversity cline when it comes to L11+ clades, so yeah do go on believing what you deem to be correct, I’ll believe what I deem to be correct, and this is very strong evidence for the expansion of P312 from SW Europe, not just a bunch of coincidences.

Autosomal dna is tricky, half-contributed by females, as everyone knows, and subject to the rules of dominance and recession. A dominant dental trait contributed by a minority population could very easily become the norm in a relatively short amount of time - "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" - regardless of what was happening on the y-dna front.

Uhmm, what are the odds that such scenario pointing to total replacement would repeat itself in two different unrelated places(i.e. Southern France, Hungary), yet in Northern Spain there is full continuity and no differentiation between pre- and post- Bell Beaker populations. Also, this were non metric dental traits, but like I said before, yet another line of evidence, you can just add it if you want to the list of “coincidences” and let them keep accumulating.

I am also far less than certain about the argument from lactase persistence, which could as easily have been female-vectored as male-vectored. As a matter of fact, at the Lichtenstein Cave site in Germany, circa 1300 BC (a bit late, I know), a number of the I2 individuals were LP, as were the two R1a, while the single R1b individual was lactose intolerant.

Really, you are going to try to argue by exception here? I’m actually unfamiliar with the lactose situation in the Lichtenstein Cave, perhaps you could provide some literature on it, that would be great!! I can tell you that Cardial Avellanar, Catalonia 5000 BC 7/7 were C/C, pre-Beaker Treilles,France 3000 BC 26/26 were C/C, then a collection of 9 Central European samples going from 5840 BC to 2267 BC, all turned out to be C/C yet again.(Ref: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3736.long), then add to it 10 individuals from the Pitted ware Culture dating to 2800 BC to 2200 BC, and 9/10 C/C, 1 C/T.

Just when archeologist were starting to give out hope that lactose tolerance arose in the Neolithic time frame in Central Europe, and hobbyist were happily declaring it must have come with the Proto-IndoEuropean expansion from the Steppes, which gave them a selective advantage, and explained how R1b became dominant because it could drink milk, etc, !! Pre-Beaker site from SJAPL, Southern Alava dating to 3000 BC yields 13/19 C/C, 4/19 T/T, and 2/19 T/C. Those darn Basques(even if Alavenses) always messing things up!!! So yes, one can either accept that there are quite some strong lines of evidence pointing to a population expansion from Northern Iberia during the Bell Beaker period, or remain skeptical and add everything to the list of “coincidences”:

1-Dental morphology indicates that pre-Beaker populations and post-Beaker populations were the same in Northern Spain, including the region were SJAPL is located, and were the only significant(relative to time period) levels of lactose tolerance have been found in Neolithic Europe.

2-The mostly G2a with minor I2a Treilles population that appeared to be wholly lactose intolerant shows signs of great population replacement with the arrival of the Bell Beakers, nowadays they are mostly R1b-P312 and lactose tolerant.

3-Other things found by the dental morphology study such as Corded Ware in Bohemia being adopted by locals, and later acquiring Bell Beaker elements, and even dispersing eastern influences fall in line with what is known about the region. Also the great differentiation of dental morphology of women and men in Central Europe adds to the recently confirmed patrilocality of the Neolithic folks in Central Europe, and agrees with the mt-DNA profile of the folks in Germany who are the first to yield R1b-M269 results.

Again, feel free to remain skeptical, however I’d appreciate it if you could bring lines of evidence supported by data that point to a Bronze Age expansion of R1b-L150+ from the Steppes or Anatolia.

The 2010 Desideri study expands on the 2008 one, but I wouldn't say Iberia is necessarily a population source for the R1b part of Beaker. The dendogram in Fig. 3 shows the final neolithic for France to be just as important for a source population, if not moreso than final neolithic Spain. If SE France/Rhone valley is a source for R1b L51+, then it makes more sense with Beaker dates being relatively close in adjacent regions from this central location with R1b's travelling in multiple directions. Isn't there a study showing SE France and NW Italy as an important early Beaker/metal-working region?

One would see that the area were the Treilles remains were found is one of the areas that experienced population replacement with the arrival of the Bell Beakers.

PS: The steppe scenario looks like a plausible explanation for the advancement of R1b-L23(xL150) cousins of the Western European R1b-L150+, who very likely brought IE languages to Europe.

Your PS, it seems to me, is a weak point in your argument. It is pretty apparent that R-M269 originated in the East. R1b-L23(xL150) is obviously ancestral to R1b-L150 and so on. Now, before you object that modern men who are R1b-L23(xL150) are not ancestral to western Europeans but belong to their own set of modern downstream clades, let me say that I realize that. However, given that the path of R1b into Europe was originally from east to west, whether part of it traveled that path way back before the LGM or later, the fact that the bulk of R1b-L23(xL150) is in the East is significant.

It just doesn't seem believable to me that R1b-M269 1) headed west into Europe before the LGM; 2) rode it out there in Iberia, then 3) later expanded from Iberia, primarily as L11 and its clades; and that 4) far behind it another portion stayed put, moving into Europe as part of a secondary expansion in the Bronze Age that carried IE languages.

Thus you have a sort of schizophrenic R-M269, its western persona mainly R1b-L11, expanding from Iberia, its smaller eastern persona R1b-L23(xL150) expanding much later from the steppe.

A single, relatively steady, relatively continuous expansion makes more sense to me and is more consistent with the overall age estimates for R1b-M269 as a whole and the progress of its SNPs. The various eddyings and meanderings of this subgroup and that do not alter the overall picture. They do, however, enable you to claim a bifurcation in the history of European R1b-M269 and thus salvage pride-of-place for the Basque Country and the old "Paleolithic R1b" story, albeit in a new and somewhat different incarnation.

Tell me something I don’t already know! But suit up, because this is yet another line of evidence pointing to an expansion of P312 from Northern Iberia, and SW France. I have yet to see any convincing line of evidence that points to the origin of P312 as a surfing wave haplogroup, especially when there is no East-West diversity cline when it comes to L11+ clades, so yeah do go on believing what you deem to be correct, I’ll believe what I deem to be correct, and this is very strong evidence for the expansion of P312 from SW Europe, not just a bunch of coincidences.

No one said anything about "coincidences", except you. I feel fine believing what I currently believe, because your position is just not compelling.

You think it is, and apparently it is to you, but it's not.

There is an east-west cline for R-M269 as a whole. So, in order to rescue the pre-eminence of the Basque Country from the derogation it has recently suffered at the hands of those who have successfully contended against the old "Paleolithic European R1b" idea, you must posit a major and glaring migratus interruptus for M269, bringing the ancestors of L11 to Iberia in the remote pre-LGM past, and having their L11 descendants expand from there post-LGM.

So, just as you rejected Robert's diversity findings for R1b in Iberia as a whole in favor of a region (i.e., the western Pyrenees) more amenable to your notions, you single L11 and its clades out of R-M269 in Europe as a whole to bolster your claim of a bifurcation in the history of European R-M269.

Even there I'm not sure you're right. You can't provide evidence that R-P312 is older in SW Europe than elsewhere, and I am pretty sure R-U106 is older in Eastern Europe than it is in the West. Once you remove P312 and U106 from European L11, there's not much left. So, I'm not sure your argument that there is no east-west cline for L11 is even true.

Uhmm, what are the odds that such scenario pointing to total replacement would repeat itself in two different unrelated places(i.e. Southern France, Hungary), yet in Northern Spain there is full continuity and no differentiation between pre- and post- Bell Beaker populations. Also, this were non metric dental traits, but like I said before, yet another line of evidence, you can just add it if you want to the list of “coincidences” and let them keep accumulating.

Like I said, and I don't think you missed, I'm not sure your argument that dental morphology=continuity of y-dna population is valid.

Really, you are going to try to argue by exception here? I’m actually unfamiliar with the lactose situation in the Lichtenstein Cave, perhaps you could provide some literature on it, that would be great!! I can tell you that Cardial Avellanar, Catalonia 5000 BC 7/7 were C/C, pre-Beaker Treilles,France 3000 BC 26/26 were C/C, then a collection of 9 Central European samples going from 5840 BC to 2267 BC, all turned out to be C/C yet again.(Ref: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3736.long), then add to it 10 individuals from the Pitted ware Culture dating to 2800 BC to 2200 BC, and 9/10 C/C, 1 C/T.

I am not arguing by exception, because I wasn't arguing that there is no connection between R1b and LP. I just pointed out an interesting fact, i.e., that the single R1b guy in the Lichtenstein Cave was lactose intolerant.

I do read German, but I am not going to struggle through that whole paper again (252 pages); my German is barely up to scientific papers - heck, my English is barely up to scientific papers (most of which are badly written, if you ask me).

Anyway, the y-dna haplotypes are listed in a table on page 93 of the study. Male 9 (M9) has haplotype Y3, which is predicted from STRs to be R1b. On page 198, in the lower left, he is symbolized by a little box, below which appears his "LAK" (Laktose toleranz) result: C/C. In other words, the one R1b guy, Mr. M9, was lactose intolerant.

I was aware of the lactose intolerance at Avellaner, Treilles and in the other remains you mentioned. I know there were six LP individuals at SJAPL. We don't know anything about the y-dna situation there, but we do know there were some I2 and R1a individuals in the Lichtenstein Cave who were LP, while the one R1b guy was not.

Just when archeologist were starting to give out hope that lactose tolerance arose in the Neolithic time frame in Central Europe, and hobbyist were happily declaring it must have come with the Proto-IndoEuropean expansion from the Steppes, which gave them a selective advantage, and explained how R1b became dominant because it could drink milk, etc, !! Pre-Beaker site from SJAPL, Southern Alava dating to 3000 BC yields 13/19 C/C, 4/19 T/T, and 2/19 T/C. Those darn Basques(even if Alavenses) always messing things up!!!

As I pointed out above in the case of the Lichtenstein Cave, it's quite possible for a bunch of I2 folks to be LP in the presence of an R1b guy who was not. And we do not yet know the y haplogroup or groups of any of the males at SJAPL. Even if they were all R-M269, SJAPL dates only to about 3,000 BC. It won't prove your theory.

Frankly, it would not surprise me if none of them was R1b.

LP might have been first imparted by a female, and it could have as easily been transmitted by females as males.

I agree with you about the Basques messing things up, though, but only because of the persistent, unwarranted obsession with them as the measure of R-M269.

So yes, one can either accept that there are quite some strong lines of evidence pointing to a population expansion from Northern Iberia during the Bell Beaker period, or remain skeptical and add everything to the list of “coincidences”:

1-Dental morphology indicates that pre-Beaker populations and post-Beaker populations were the same in Northern Spain, including the region were SJAPL is located, and were the only significant(relative to time period) levels of lactose tolerance have been found in Neolithic Europe.

2-The mostly G2a with minor I2a Treilles population that appeared to be wholly lactose intolerant shows signs of great population replacement with the arrival of the Bell Beakers, nowadays they are mostly R1b-P312 and lactose tolerant.

3-Other things found by the dental morphology study such as Corded Ware in Bohemia being adopted by locals, and later acquiring Bell Beaker elements, and even dispersing eastern influences fall in line with what is known about the region. Also the great differentiation of dental morphology of women and men in Central Europe adds to the recently confirmed patrilocality of the Neolithic folks in Central Europe, and agrees with the mt-DNA profile of the folks in Germany who are the first to yield R1b-M269 results.

Again, feel free to remain skeptical, however I’d appreciate it if you could bring lines of evidence supported by data that point to a Bronze Age expansion of R1b-L150+ from the Steppes or Anatolia.

Your PS, it seems to me, is a weak point in your argument. It is pretty apparent that R-M269 originated in the East. R1b-L23(xL150) is obviously ancestral to R1b-L150 and so on. Now, before you object that modern men who are R1b-L23(xL150) are not ancestral to western Europeans but belong to their own set of modern downstream clades, let me say that I realize that. However, given that the path of R1b into Europe was originally from east to west, whether part of it traveled that path way back before the LGM or later, the fact that the bulk of R1b-L23(xL150) is in the East is significant.

Well if you know it, then what’s the point of claiming that R1b-L23(xL150) found in West Asia is ancestral, when you know that it isn’t. The difference in fact points that because of the lack of R1b-L150+ in West Asia, that R1b-L150+ was born in Europe, now, there isn’t any lack of either R1b-L23(xL150) or R1b-M269(xL23) in Europe.

It just doesn't seem believable to me that R1b-M269 1) headed west into Europe before the LGM; 2) rode it out there in Iberia, and then 3) later expanded from Iberia, primarily as L11 and its clades, and that 4) far behind it another portion stayed put, moving into Europe as part of a secondary expansion in the Bronze Age that carried IE languages.

Well other than you thinking it isn’t likely, is that reasoning based upon any logical data, or is this just wishful thinking. I mean there are arguments that point to an expansion from Iberia for the Bell Beakers, not saying that it necessarily involved R1b clades, although R1b has been found recently in a Beaker site, but like I said before, bring on the evidence that points to the arrival of R1b-L23+, and the formation of L150, L11, etc along the way.

A single, relatively steady, relatively continuous expansion makes more sense to me and is more consistent with the overall age estimates for R1b-M269 as a whole and the progress of its SNPs. The various eddyings and meanderings of this subgroup and that do not alter the overall picture. They do, however, enable you to claim a bifurcation in the history of European R1b-M269 and thus salvage pride-of-place for the Basque Country and the old "Paleolithic R1b" story, albeit in a new and somewhat different incarnation.

Bring on the evidence!!! Where does the variance of R1b-P312 peak, how about the variance of L11, where does the variance of R1b-M269+ peaks?

There is an east-west cline for R-M269 as a whole. So, in order to rescue the pre-eminence of the Basque Country from the derogation it has recently suffered at the hands of those who have successfully contended against the old "Paleolithic European R1b" idea, you must posit a major and glaring migratus interruptus for M269, bringing the ancestors of L11 to Iberia in the remote pre-LGM past, and having their L11 descendants expand from there post-LGM.

There is only an East-West cline for R1b-L23(xL150), there is no such thing for R1b-M269(xL23), nor for R1b-L150+. So since you said there is an east-west cline, I say, bring on the evidence.

So, just as you rejected Robert's diversity findings for R1b in Iberia as a whole in favor of a region (i.e., the western Pyrenees) more amenable to your notions, you single L11 and its clades out of R-M269 in Europe as a whole to bolster your claim of a bifurcation in the history of European R-M269.

I did not reject his finding for all of Iberia, I simply stated that per the latest studies from the Western Pyrenees the average Iberian haplogroup age hierarchy doesn’t apply in the Western Pyrenees.

Even there I'm not sure you're right. You can't provide evidence that R-P312 is older in SW Europe than elsewhere, and I am pretty sure R-U106 is older in Eastern Europe than it is in the West. Once you remove P312 and U106 from European L11, there's not much left. So, I'm not sure your argument that there is no east-west cline for L11 is even true.

Of course I can, and I did, R1b-P312 peak in variance from Myres.et.al.2010 in Western Europe was in Vaucluse and it was 0.307, Iberia wasn’t included in the analysis, but Eastern, Central and Western Europe were, and the peak was in that region. My argument for no east-west cline for L11 is based upon the finding by Busby.et.al.2011, so basically you are saying that their findings aren’t true?

I am not arguing by exception, because I wasn't arguing that there is no connection between R1b and LP. I just pointed out an interesting fact, i.e., that the single R1b guy in the Lichtenstein Cave was lactose intolerant.

I do read German, but I am not going to struggle through that whole paper again (252 pages); my German is barely up to scientific papers - heck, my English is barely up to scientific papers (most of which are badly written, if you ask me).

Anyway, the y-dna haplotypes are listed in a table on page 93 of the study. Male 9 (M9) has haplotype Y3, which is predicted from STRs to be R1b. On page 198, in the lower left, he is symbolized by a little box, below which appears his "LAK" (Laktose toleranz) result: C/C. In other words, the one R1b guy, Mr. M9, was lactose intolerant.

Well we don’t even know if Mr.M9 is an R1b, since it was not tested using SNPs, but matched using STRs. Nonetheless, I don’t see how that contradicts my points of SJAPL being in the putative launch pad of Bell Beakers from Iberia, and if they were R1b, they definitely had a selective advantage, which could explain their come back to the top as Western Europe’s haplogroup.

I was aware of the lactose intolerance at Avellaner, Treilles and in the other remains you mentioned. I know there were six LP individuals at SJAPL. We don't know anything about the y-dna situation there, but we do know there were some I2 and R1a individuals in the Lichtenstein Cave who were LP, while the one R1b guy was not.

I don’t know, it feels like arguing by exception, also I’m getting to understand that the guy was R1b-U106.

As I pointed out above in the case of the Lichtenstein Cave, it's quite possible for a bunch of I2 folks to be LP in the presence of an R1b guy who was not. And we do not yet know the y haplogroup or groups of any of the males at SJAPL. Even if they were all R-M269, SJAPL dates only to about 3,000 BC. It won't prove your theory.

Frankly, it would not surprise me if none of them was R1b.

So you are going to keep bringing the Lichtenstein Cave, so what’s it going to be dental morphology pointing to an expansion of Bell Beakers from Northern Spain, Lactase persistence pointing to the possible selective advantage that helped R1b folks reach the current levels vs. 1 guy from Lichtenstein who is presumed to be R1b-U106 and turned out to be lactose intolerant 3000 years later than the findings of lactose tolerant individuals in SJAPL, because there is no way in hell that the guy could have turned out to be C/C even though the parents could have been C/T each, or perhaps C/T one and C/C the other.

Your PS, it seems to me, is a weak point in your argument. It is pretty apparent that R-M269 originated in the East. R1b-L23(xL150) is obviously ancestral to R1b-L150 and so on. Now, before you object that modern men who are R1b-L23(xL150) are not ancestral to western Europeans but belong to their own set of modern downstream clades, let me say that I realize that. However, given that the path of R1b into Europe was originally from east to west, whether part of it traveled that path way back before the LGM or later, the fact that the bulk of R1b-L23(xL150) is in the East is significant.

Well if you know it, then what’s the point of claiming that R1b-L23(xL150) found in West Asia is ancestral, when you know that it isn’t. The difference in fact points that because of the lack of R1b-L150+ in West Asia, that R1b-L150+ was born in Europe, now, there isn’t any lack of either R1b-L23(xL150) or R1b-M269(xL23) in Europe.

I just want to make sure I'm following the parts on L150+ L51- people and L51+ L11-. Richard R did the map for us on L51xL11 and we know that these folks are hard to find. L150xL51 is even harder to find.

But the unique meaningful L150- are those of Romitti and Seymour, because they demonstrate that they are the ancestors of all R-L150+. And they are an Italian and a British. The others are of course L150-, which is the ancestral value. I don’t know why only these samples are quoted, because all the haplogroups except R-L23/L150+ should be L150-.

... But the unique meaningful L150- are those of Romitti and Seymour, because they demonstrate that they are the ancestors of all R-L150+. And they are an Italian and a British. ...

Just to be clear, Romitti and Seymor have the ancestral value at the L150 SNP location so they are designated L150-. This means their branching with all L150+ folks occurred long ago, but doesn't mean their L150- haplotypes ancestral to L150+ haplotypes. They are just distant, distant cousins in the R1b family.

Okay, JeanL, you have succeeded in going beyond my limit in creating those long long posts in which one chops up quotes from his opponent and answers them piecemeal. I have only so much endurance for that sort of crapola. I'll answer it in kind a couple of times, but then it just succumbs to the law of diminishing returns.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't find your conclusions convincing.

I have nothing against Basques, but I don't think they are all that important either.

Okay, JeanL, you have succeeded in going beyond my limit in creating those long long posts in which one chops up quotes from his opponent and answers them piecemeal. I have only so much endurance for that sort of crapola. I'll answer it in kind a couple of times, but then it just succumbs to the law of diminishing returns.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't find your conclusions convincing.

Fair enough, I agree!! (On leaving it aside for now, not that my conclusions aren't convincing)

Jean L- I think taking a position opposite the norm always helps test the received wisdom or mainstream model. Sometimes it weakens the latter and sometimes it doesnt but its all good until it reaches the point or burn out. You really lost me with the idea that IE P312 arrived before IE L23* in Europe. That just feels convoluted and improbable. Basically linking P312 to a Basque language just doesnt ring true and creates all sorts of problem explaining how Europe became IE-ised in a post-beaker world. I also see no evidence for L23* being remotely big enough in most of Europe to explain IE-isation. L23* of course in itself is not incredibly old either nor is L51* or pooled L11. The similarity of the STRs from L51 down to the major immediate downsteam subclades of P312 makes the idea that P312 was is some sort of Basque refuge until 2500BC very improbable to me. The similarity of all M269 cannot be explained by a Basque P312 refuge. In relative terms of P312 was some sort of hunter gatherer remant in western Europe or indeed all M268 then that would make haplogroup I about twice as old as the age of modern humans in Europe. You model of bottleneck of P312 in the Basque area seems to fail as the youth and very close similarity of European R1b doesnt hinge just of P312. It also stretch to all L11 and to a degree L23. They are far too similar to have been separated so long. Sorry but I feel your model is incredibly counterintuitive.

Jean L- I think taking a position opposite the norm always helps test the received wisdom or mainstream model. Sometimes it weakens the latter and sometimes it doesnt but its all good until it reaches the point or burn out. You really lost me with the idea that IE P312 arrived before IE L23* in Europe. That just feels convoluted and improbable. Basically linking P312 to a Basque language just doesnt ring true and creates all sorts of problem explaining how Europe became IE-ised in a post-beaker world.

Well, to me it solves the IE/nonIE duality of P312, if some clades were nonIE speaking, whereas other got IE-ised in Central Europe, it would explain how Iberia remained mostly nonIE in its P312 hotspots, whereas France and England did not. In turn Iberia carries mostly P312(xL21,U152) whereas the opposite holds true outside of Iberia.

I also see no evidence for L23* being remotely big enough in most of Europe to explain IE-isation. L23* of course in itself is not incredibly old either nor is L51* or pooled L11.

Well, we have no certainty as to the age of L51*, I was doing some calculations for all L23+ in different places in Europe, and what I found is that the mutation rate matters a lot. For example, I ran the Klyosov scenario where I corrected for back mutations and used his mutations rates and got ages for R1b going from 4775 ybp in Poland to 3525 ybp in England, France was sitting at 3800 ybp, then I used the actual germline mutation rates from YHRD and Poland drops down to 3675 ybp, if I were to use evolutionary rates then I get 11025 ybp. So, long story short, I see no reason right now to give any preference to an age estimate over another, and given how dependant the TMRCA is on the mutation rate used, I wouldn’t build a counterhypothesis based on L23* not looking “old”.

In relative terms of P312 was some sort of hunter gatherer remant in western Europe or indeed all M268 then that would make haplogroup I about twice as old as the age of modern humans in Europe.

Per the latest age estimates P312 is about the same age as I1 in terms of intraclade, perhaps a bit younger, it is I2 the one that is about twice the age of P312, however, interestingly enough I2 and G2a share a similar age, which in fact points to their older age being the byproduct of a Neolithic expansion, whereas the expansion of P312 and I1 was more of a Bronze Age expansion. But nonetheless, if you could show how exactly M269 being a hunter gatherer remant in Western Europe would make haplogroup I about 80,000 years old, I would certainly appreciate it.

You model of bottleneck of P312 in the Basque area seems to fail as the youth and very close similarity of European R1b doesnt hinge just of P312. It also stretch to all L11 and to a degree L23. They are far too similar to have been separated so long. Sorry but I feel your model is incredibly counterintuitive.

Most of the L23 today in Europe is the byproduct of the expansion that took places from the Steppes, however, there are a few lineages here and there that are separated by more than 6 mutations from the modal in a 10 STR marker set, those lineages were actually found in Switzerland, and those lineages likely represent the L23 folks that remained trapped in Western Europe, and that gave rise to the subsequent lineages.

Just to be clear, Romitti and Seymor have the ancestral value at the L150 SNP location so they are designated L150-. This means their branching with all L150+ folks occurred long ago, but doesn't mean their L150- haplotypes ancestral to L150+ haplotypes. They are just distant, distant cousins in the R1b family.

This is your usual answer, but which isn’t worth at all now. Firstly began Vincent Vizachero in denying the reliability of this SNP and, when FTDNA recognized it, he left all projects and came back to his plants. He certainly understood its importance and having lost his game with me.There are tons of letters about this, about the test on L150 done on Romitti before he ordered it and the test on his son delayed for years.Of course we cannot say that Romitti (PWN78) is the ancestor of all subclades, but certainly he descends from those related people, who almost certainly lived in Italy and from whom the subclades were born.Romitti’s haplotype is close to those all subclades and above all to my cousin’s haplotype (Giorgio Tognarelli: DK6NG), who finds on FTDNA 100 close haplotypes all over Western Europe, who comes from Lunigiana and has links with Corsica too and above all is L150+. Here that haplotype was born and long before you or Klyosov may think.

Well, to me it solves the IE/nonIE duality of P312, if some clades were nonIE speaking, whereas other got IE-ised in Central Europe, it would explain how Iberia remained mostly nonIE in its P312 hotspots, whereas France and England did not. In turn Iberia carries mostly P312(xL21,U152) whereas the opposite holds true outside of Iberia.

As much as I do not want to get into another round of "quote, counterpoint", here goes.

What "duality"? A duality implies an equal or at least roughly equal split into two; a HUGE, Indo-European, ninety-something-percent-of-R-P312 majority versus a small, odd, Basque minority is hardly a duality. It is an anomaly.

Let's try to maintain a sense of proportion.

If you counter that the Iberians were probably non-IE speaking, you will have to show that they were mostly R-P312. It is not even certain that Iberian was non-IE.

As much as I do not want to get into another round of "quote, counterpoint", here goes.

What "duality"? A duality implies an equal or at least roughly equal split into two; a HUGE, Indo-European, ninety-something-percent-of-R-P312 majority versus a small, odd, Basque minority is hardly a duality. It is an anomaly.

Let's try to maintain a sense of proportion.

If you counter that the Iberians were probably non-IE speaking, you will have to show that they were mostly R-P312. It is not even certain that Iberian was non-IE.

Well, what is the percentage of R1b-P312(xDF27) in France, England, North Italy, etc. Now what is the percentage of R1b-P312(xL21,U152) inside of Iberia. The Basques are only a minority due to them being the only nonIE speaking remant. As much as you’d wish to ignore them completely to fit the IE theory, something else don’t fit the data, P312 diversity cline goes for the most part from West to East not East-west, and L11 diversity cline has no pattern inside of Europe, so again the argument of mutations arising in the edge of a surfing wave fail when it comes to diversity distribution.

As for Iberians, well it is well known that they were nonIE speaking, they left inscriptions which clearly show that their language wasn’t IE. As for me needing to show that they were mostly R-P312, well, turns out the areas that were under Iberian territory(i.e. Catalonia, Eastern Andalucia) are the hotspots for P312 in Iberia today outside the Basque-Navarran region, I guess we can add it as yet another “coincidence” to the list. Also add to it that the nowadays Romance speaking Gascons who were Aquitanian speaking in pre-Roman times, also have lots of P312.

Well, we have no certainty as to the age of L51*, I was doing some calculations for all L23+ in different places in Europe, and what I found is that the mutation rate matters a lot. For example, I ran the Klyosov scenario where I corrected for back mutations and used his mutations rates and got ages for R1b going from 4775 ybp in Poland to 3525 ybp in England, France was sitting at 3800 ybp, then I used the actual germline mutation rates from YHRD and Poland drops down to 3675 ybp, if I were to use evolutionary rates then I get 11025 ybp. So, long story short, I see no reason right now to give any preference to an age estimate over another, and given how dependant the TMRCA is on the mutation rate used, I wouldn’t build a counterhypothesis based on L23* not looking “old”.

Quote

Jean L. I agree with your line of thinking re: TMRCA. I have been off-line a while trying to better understand the issues of estimating TMRCA's from a set of correlated entries such as we normally deal with. I have worked with the following mutation rate tables: 1. Chandlers 2. Marko Heinilas 3. YHRD (limited number of dys loci). 4. Burgarella et.al. and 5. Zhivotovsky. There are many significant anomolies: e.g. 393 differs by a factor of 3 in 1,2 and 4. 388 differs by a factor of 3 from 426 in Chandlers set and they are equivalent in Burgarella's.

Of even equivalent interest is the database properties we sometimes work with: www/freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~geneticgenealogy/yfreq.htm.(To look this up google freepages....com and then get the alphabet menu and pick G, then look for geneticgenealogy and finally pick the yfreq entry).

Looking specifically at R1b in this table and the first 12 FtDNA dys loci. We have 22,129 entries. If I apply the above rates from the different sources to this table I get for 393 an expected number of mutations as 16 to 50+ depending on rate used. If I compute the number of mutations counted in the table I get 9% X 22,120 =1990! The only sense I can make out of this data is that the set of entries are not independent but are very highly correlated. I believe that extracting TMRCA data from this data base without a lot of careful selection will yield little information of any value.

Note: When I analyzed the Kerchner family and the Ian Cam of Clan Gregor, I had to be aware of two problems: 1. Unique mutations events (defined by Charles at his web site) and 2. Unique haplotypes, so that the number of entries counted is correct. By doing these two things and not using the fast mutators I was able to get the estimated/expected TMRCA for these two sets of data.

So, I agree with your comments re: estimating TMRCA and when its all said and done, the Zhivotovsky approach may compensate for some of the properties mentioned above. Klyosovs work with modals will also tend to obviate these problems also.

Just to be clear, Romitti and Seymor have the ancestral value at the L150 SNP location so they are designated L150-. This means their branching with all L150+ folks occurred long ago, but doesn't mean their L150- haplotypes ancestral to L150+ haplotypes. They are just distant, distant cousins in the R1b family.

This is your usual answer, but which isn’t worth at all now. Firstly began Vincent Vizachero in denying the reliability of this SNP and, when FTDNA recognized it, he left all projects and came back to his plants. He certainly understood its importance and having lost his game with me.There are tons of letters about this, about the test on L150 done on Romitti before he ordered it and the test on his son delayed for years.

I don't know all of the in's and out's of L150. I've read an ISOGG rep's concern of it being reliable. No, this was no Vince V. I have no bone to pick. I see both ISOGG and FTDNA are now using it so I assume they are good with its usage. I'm guessing I'm saying I don't care about your and Vince's disagreements.

Romitti’s haplotype is close to those all subclades and above all to my cousin’s haplotype (Giorgio Tognarelli: DK6NG), who finds on FTDNA 100 close haplotypes all over Western Europe, who comes from Lunigiana and has links with Corsica too and above all is L150+. Here that haplotype was born and long before you or Klyosov may think.

I suspect we are talking about different ages for L150+ and its ancestor R1b-L23, but I agree we are talking about 4K ybp at the least and and should probably double or triple that, or even more. Let's think about that though. That timeframe is long before the origination of Rometti's surname. Their family links to Corsica could have occurred in many ways. The presence and surnames of one or two modern men can be explained in many ways so I don't see how that helps us determine the origins of L23 or L150 or L51.

Mike now that you talk about Corsica, there is something that I thought I could bring up, I noticed as I have been doing some runs with the data from Busby.et.al.2011 that Corsica in fact has the highest diversity of all R1b-M269+ in Europe, at least on that dataset, and they have a decent sample size, so it’s not a fluke due to small sample size. What do you think could have cause an Island such as Corsica to have such high diversity relative to other European regions? Also, do you have any haplotypes from Corsica from the FTDNA projects; it would be interesting to see if the results are replicated on a different set of samples.

To talk some numbers into the question, Corsica(n=13) has a mean variance of .3795 mut/marker whereas England(n=94) for example has a mean variance of 0.2837 mut/marker.